Looks very like a weight sold at auction earlier today along with two other Harland weights! So I think it is 'Paul Ysart', Harland period. I say 'Paul Ysart' in quotes because his apprentices made lampwork and weights as well as him, and I don't think anyone knows how to tell which are his Harland weights rather than his apprentices'.

Alan

Logged

Alan"There are two rules for ultimate success in life. Number 1: Never tell everything you know."

The comments in this posting reflect the opinion of the author, Alan Thornton, and not that of the owners, administrators or moderators of this board. Comments are copyright Alan Thornton.http://www.pwts.co.uk

Thanks for that. I was hesitating between the Caithness and Harland periods.

Beyond the circumstancial evidence (sorry, can't help it! It is a case of 'deformation professionnelle'), would there be a way to pin down the period more accurately? Only for interest sake. I confess to have never quite grasped the various scientific methods regularly discussed on this board and in the relevant literature (I was always a bit weak in the science department ).

The only way to be reasonably sure of some Paul Ysart weights is, sadly, with the "scientific method" of shining a shortwave UV lamp at them. All of Paul's weights from the Caithness period that I have examined show a clear Blue fluorescence under the shortwave. And none of the Paul Ysart weights from earlier or later periods show as Blue, according to my investigations.

Although in earlier literature, including my article in Angela Bowey's Glass Museum , a Longwave (blacklight) UV separation has been suggested for Caithness period and Harland period weights, I am no longer quite so happy about it. In both cases the fluorescence I see these days is a sort of yellowish-orangeish-pinkish-with-sometimes-a-hint-of-greenish colour and being sure about the differences is becoming harder for me.

However, the look of the lampwork of your weight does seem to be of the Harland style - or at least, known Harland period weights often have a similar style lampwork.

Alan's comment re assistants is valid, but anything they made as standard output, while working for Paul Ysart was deemed to be from the "Paul Ysart" companies.

Many thanks for the reply. I will try and convince my husband to help me with the shortwave UV experiment. I'd love to learn (and even better I'd love to understand the science... but that may be a step too far).

If, as we expect, this weight is from the Harland period, what colour should I see under the shortwave UK lamp?

If, as we expect, this weight is from the Harland period, what colour should I see under the shortwave UK lamp?

Prepare to get confused ... Depends upon which of my articles (or which book by other authors) I use for reference!!

In my web article linked to earlier, I said "Dusty Light Green". I also said the same for pre-Caithness period Ysart items. But later I preferred "Dusty Grey", which returned to a general agreement with the detail in Bob Hall's book Scottish Paperweights. That was back in 1999/2000 and the few years following.

In 2009, Colin Mahoney (probably America's foremost authority on Ysart weights) wrote a book, Masterworks: The Paperweights of Paul Ysart. In his book, he gave a table of UV results for each period of Ysart items. For Harland/Highland he stated "None" for the shortwave UV reaction. He also stated "Cloudy yellow-brown" for the shortwave reaction of pre-Caithness Paul Ysart pieces.

Maybe the quality of darkness used for UV tests in California differs from that in England :huh:, but I still think "Dusty Grey" is closer to what I see.

However, the important point is that the shorwtwave reaction of a Harland period weight will not be Blue, whereas for a Caithness one it will be Blue. Before the Caithness period, as far as I know, Paul Ysart did not make Flower-on-Latticino-Cushion weights with the extensive use of bright aventurine (or mica?) as seen in your weight.

Many thanks for these detailed explanations. I remember now why I did not like science lessons all these years ago!!

I was hoping to give you the result of my experiment and report my version of the colour/shade (to add to the confusion), but I have not rigged a UV shortwave lamp yet. My scientist of a husband has had a bigger project/machine to fry!! I think I will have to take a trip to Maplin on my own...

Still, as soon as I have waved the magic lamp, I will report my results to this thread.

I am sorry to bother you again regarding this. I have tried to get hold/buy a shortwave UV lamp but I was baffled by the choices and the language until my husband took pity and clarified things for me.

I have one remaining question (which he cannot answer): does size matter (i.e. would a small shortwave UV lamp be enough for my purpose)?

I have very recently purchased a battery powered shortwave UV lamp via the internet and I am awaiting delivery. I will check it out against my mains powered unit. The one I have ordered is rated at 256 nm whereas my mains unit is 254 nm, but I don't suppose 2 nm will make much difference.

I have done a similar comparison with a battery powerered "pen light" longwave unit (sold as a uv marker pen for security labelling) and found that the results are ok but sometimes only with a very narrow focused beam and with the unit held very close to the object. With the pen light, paperweights, with their magnifying dome, do seem to give better results than, say, a regular clear vase. The fluorescence colour seen with the pen light is not always as intense as with the mains powered unit, but is acceptable for comparative purposes. Maybe it will be the same with the battery shortwave lamp?

Important point - anyone using a shortwave uv lamp should ALWAYS follow the safety advice and NEVER look into the lamp or allow uncovered skin to be exposed to its output. Shortwave uv is the type used for medical purposes, amongst other things, and can be seriously harmful to biological lifeforms.